Remanded

Manoj and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024A482/11366/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed application in quashing proceedings. The High Court found the impugned order summing applicants under Section 498-A IPC to be perverse due to vague dowry allegations. It set aside the order and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh order without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order summing applicants under Section 498-A IPC is set aside; matter remitted to trial court to pass fresh order after issuing notice to opposite party-2.

Manoj and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:139687

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11366 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for applicants.

¶7

I find substance in argument that impugned order has suffered with perversity. In the impugned order, whereby applicants have been summoned under Section 498-A IPC, it has been mentioned that complainant i.e. wife of applicant-1 has mentioned in her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. about allegations of demand of dowry, however, by referring the complaint, which is annexed with this application, learned counsel shows that only reference therein was in regard to allegation of not returning 'streedhan'. There was no allegation of demand of dowry or committing cruelty for said purpose.

¶8

In this regard, reference made to statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. would also be relevant that for the first time in the statement, an omnibus allegations have been made against present 3 applicants and husband of complainant (not a party herein) that they have demanded dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- and motorcycle.

¶9

Learned counsel further refers contents of complaint that averment therein was that Rs. 10,00,000/- were expended during marriage, therefore, there is much ambiguity in contents of complaint and statements of

¶10

complainant and witnesses recorded U/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

¶11

In aforesaid circumstances, it appears that learned Magistrate has not applied its judicial mind in correct perspective.

¶12

In view of above, impugned order dated 19.01.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Complaint Case No. 48/2023 (Adarsh vs. Shivam and others) under Section 498-A IPC, Police Station- Mursan, District- Hathras, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras is set aside. However, considering that this order is passed without issuing notice to opposite party-2, therefore, matter is remitted back to trial Court to pass a fresh order, after taking note of above referred observations as well as judgments of Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Lalankumar Singh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1383 .

¶13

Application stands disposed of with above observations.

¶14

Order Date :- 30.8.2024 N. Sinha

¶15

Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jay Prakash Yadav and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Naresh Bahadur vs State of U.P. and Another

Gurpreet Singh Bhogal and Another vs State of Up and Another

Rasik Agarwal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Pragya Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Hemlata and 6 Others vs State of Up and Another